Odds of playing at least 200 nhl games by draft round

[Ray_Cathode]

There has been much discussion about the value of picks beyond the first round and what value, if any, that they have. Conveniently, some has done an empirical study, and I have attached the link below. But, I will summarize: for forwards, the odds of a first rounder playing 200 games are about 35%, the odds for either a second or third rounder are about half that - but combined they equal that of a first rounder. Fourth and fifth rounders are about half of second or third rounders - but combined they equal the odds of a second. Odds after the fifth do drop off, but they still yield players. Odds for defencemen and goalies differ, with almost as many second round goalies as firsts making their 200 games.

 

in summary, draft picks of the lower rounds are essential to filling out a roster, and teams that throw away those opportunities tend, in the long run, not to do well.

 

Source: https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

[flat land fish]

Interesting piece.  Substantial value in top 10 draft picks then it becomes a crapshoot.  The value of those 2nd to 7th rounders is a little bit tricky it’s like the dice roll exercise and saying you want to roll a 3.  Getting two opportunities to roll the 3 improves your chances of hitting but your odds reset each time and you still miss 5 out of 6 times.  Envy leagues like the nfl where the players come in almost fully developed and even your depth rounds are not big stretches or guesses.

[JM_]

how do you practicably combine two picks? 

[Warhippy]

As a good hockey player once said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

 

Picks are possibilities.  Without them you handcuff yourself to the current because you disregard a future.

[Crabcakes]

I have quoted Scott Cullen of TSN in the past.  His results are very similar although his method is different.

 

https://stg.tsn.9c9media.ca/statistically-speaking-nhl-draft-pick-value-1.786131

[DownUndaCanuck]

Interesting, of course top 10 picks should have a much higher percentage.

 

Looking at the Canucks since 2011, sure we haven't had a couple of firsts but we've drafted Horvat, Boeser, Petey, Hughes and Podkolzin who look like 200+ gamers if not "stars". Obviously there was Juolevi and Virtanen in that mix, but they were all fairly high picks apart from Brock.

 

Looking at the decade before that our drafting was dreadful. The year after the Sedins we drafted Nathan Smith, RJ Umberger who did alright, Schneider who we can safely say had an underwhelming career (and some remember him for breaking the worst ever goalie stats), Grabner who had a couple of good years in New York then dipped, Patrick White, Hodgson and little Jordan Schroder (lol), then of course Kesler and Bourdon. You could argue only Kes and RJ (2/9) had good careers.

 

Whether that's differences in scouting and drafting or just picking high compared to low, who knows, I think it's a bit of both. 

[Gurn]

10 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

, Schneider who we can safely say had an underwhelming career

I'd disagree about Corey.

Prior to his hip issues he was a fine goalie.

NHL Totals

410

9

4

26

2.43

171

159

58

0.918

[Kevin Biestra]

4 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Schneider who we can safely say had an underwhelming career (and some remember him for breaking the worst ever goalie stats)...

 

Schneider won the Jennings Trophy and then had four other seasons where he received votes of the post-season All Star team.  Two seasons in the top six in votes.

 

That's a pretty good career by almost any standard.  He just hit the wall hard and fairly young.

 

[Coconuts]

8 hours ago, Warhippy said:

As a good hockey player once said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

 

Picks are possibilities.  Without them you handcuff yourself to the current because you disregard a future.

This, and the caveat to the data is also how old it is. It's at least 20 years old now and how multiple generations train and prepare from a young age has most certainly changed.

 

As has the equipment, the game itself, and so on.

 

1988-1997 was a long time ago.

Edited November 12, 2022 by Coconuts

[Ray_Cathode]

On 11/10/2022 at 9:01 PM, flat land fish said:

Interesting piece.  Substantial value in top 10 draft picks then it becomes a crapshoot.  The value of those 2nd to 7th rounders is a little bit tricky it’s like the dice roll exercise and saying you want to roll a 3.  Getting two opportunities to roll the 3 improves your chances of hitting but your odds reset each time and you still miss 5 out of 6 times.  Envy leagues like the nfl where the players come in almost fully developed and even your depth rounds are not big stretches or guesses.

Of course, there is no ceteris paribus here -all things are not equal. Teams differ markedly in their scouting and prospect projection and player development. Boston and Vancouver played for the Stanley in 2011, but the difference in the approaches of the two teams has been stark - Boston did a complete rebuild, trading out the old disposable players - retaining older players that could still play. Clearly, the Canucks face scheduling and travel issues that Boston does not face. Two or three years ago I did an analysis of schedules with regard to the number of times teams had to play three times in four nights and four times in six nights. Vancouver faced those situations almost twice as often as any other team. One eastern Canadian team never had a four in six and only a couple of three in fours.in the entire season. Having to play so many of those exhausting situations - especially on the road, leads to weariness and injury. 

Development, scouting, and playeer projection aren't the only factors in the effective of turning drafted players into values that one can ice or trade for holes in one's lineup., there are also logistical factors at play. Sharing a farm team as opposed to running one's own is another, as is having a farm team close at hand. In fairness to the current Vancouver ownership, they have moved the farmteam closer to Vancouver so that their can be a sharing of development assets - and that is very important. The owners have never stinted, to my knowledge in providing financial resources, but insisting on attaining mediocrity, rather than sticking to a long range plan entirely thwarts throwing money at the team.  You can't draft players that you no longer have draft slots to pick up potential assets. You can't develop prospects that you don't have because you either traded the draft slots, or actually traded your young assets to fill a temporary need (see McCann and Forsling). It is impossible to develop players that you don't have.

In addition, hahaving most of your players come up through your system allows you to train your players into a specific mindset - you can pretty much recognize a Boston developed, or a Montreal player, or a Tampa Bay player, or a Colorado player - the team milieu is inculcated from the very beginning - the character of those you draft, the work ethic, and so on are embraced by the prospects or they are gone.

One factor that Brian Burke exposed when he was in Vancouver, was that when the NHL prepared its schedule for eastern teams, almost all the time those teams were scheduled to fly all the way to Vancouver, get a couple of days rest, and wait for the Canucks to arrive back from their roadtrip only to play the next day against a vistor well rested and chilled out. The visiting team would then fly back east to Calgary or Edmonton so that Calgary and Edmonton would always play the tired team. He complained to the league, and so long as he was here that changed - teams would play their first game on a western swing about an even number of times playing each of the western Canadian cities. After Gillis, the NHL reverted back to being convenient for the other teams - convenience was valued more by the schedule makers than fairness.If the Canucks management won't make an issue of the unfair schedule, it won't change - every other team's needs will be catered to, but not theirs.Simply informing the league that the arena won't be available for two days following a road trip, no matter what dates those dates are would be one way of making a point - the reason can be as simple as - we host other events and it takes us two days to put the ice back in. If you have more three in four or four in six, your plane can't make it, the game will have to be rescheduled - making the schedule makers scramble will cast a broad hint of what is acceptable.

It may or may not work, but if you don't try it will never change. If you allow yourself to be stepped on in life, you will be. Fans of this sport may not like it, but the professional game may be about the owner's desire to win, but it is also about money - that is why Vancouver can return from a long road trip on Friday in time to play Toronto (for instance) on Saturday at four in the afternoon..

Burke bitched about this kind of stuff and he was right and it made a difference. Burke insisted that his players stand up for themselves, and he stood up for the players and the team - he did his best to give them as even a chance as possible for winning.
 

[Ray_Cathode]

On 11/11/2022 at 6:47 AM, JM_ said:

how do you practicably combine two picks? 

Two one in six chances if approximately the same yield as a one in three chance.

[Ray_Cathode]

On 11/11/2022 at 6:47 AM, JM_ said:

how do you practicably combine two picks? 

To elaborate, “

With these kinds of problems it’s easier to calculate your chances of not winning, and then choosing the option with the lower chance of not winning.

With one 1/100 chance, you have a 99/100 = 0.99 chance of not winning.

With two 1/200 chances, you have a (199/200)*(199/200) = 0.990025 chance of not winning.

The first choice seems slightly better, but for practical purposes it doesn’t matter.

Now, if you were going to repeat this choice tens of thousands of times, then yes, it would matter and you should choose one 1/100 chance.

The question seems to imply that in the “two 1/200 chance” scenario, you don’t get to take the second chance if you win the first chance. Basically, the objective is to win only once. In that case, my analysis holds. However, if the objective is to “maximize the average number of wins”, and in the second scenario you take both chances regardless, then they have the same “average number of wins” (1/100 and 2*1/200 are the same)” quoted from Quora.

[JM_]

30 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

Two one in six chances if approximately the same yield as a one in three chance.

but thats not really how it works tho. The 2/6th round chances are two people with very low chances of making it, while the 3rd round has a much better individual chance as a higher skilled guy. The chance to succeed individually doesn't get better because there are two of them. 

 

Edited November 16, 2022 by JM_

[Ray_Cathode]

48 minutes ago, JM_ said:

but thats not really how it works tho. The 2/6th round chances are two people with very low chances of making it, while the 3rd round has a much better individual chance as a higher skilled guy. The chance to succeed individually doesn't get better because there are two of them. Actually, that is how it works - those odds are based on the actual history, I.e. the ACTUAL results.

 

[MaxVerstappen33]

On 11/11/2022 at 1:30 PM, DownUndaCanuck said:

Interesting, of course top 10 picks should have a much higher percentage.

 

Looking at the Canucks since 2011, sure we haven't had a couple of firsts but we've drafted Horvat, Boeser, Petey, Hughes and Podkolzin who look like 200+ gamers if not "stars". Obviously there was Juolevi and Virtanen in that mix, but they were all fairly high picks apart from Brock.

 

Looking at the decade before that our drafting was dreadful. The year after the Sedins we drafted Nathan Smith, RJ Umberger who did alright, Schneider who we can safely say had an underwhelming career (and some remember him for breaking the worst ever goalie stats), Grabner who had a couple of good years in New York then dipped, Patrick White, Hodgson and little Jordan Schroder (lol), then of course Kesler and Bourdon. You could argue only Kes and RJ (2/9) had good careers.

 

Whether that's differences in scouting and drafting or just picking high compared to low, who knows, I think it's a bit of both. 

You are under selling Grabner. Like everyone always does. He had 27 and 25 goals as late as 2017/18 and played in the league till 2019/20. 12 years in the NHL. That's a year more than RJ Umberger. 

 

Grabner deserves to be in the Kes RJ category 

[theo5789]

Any stats on signings of undrafted players to play 200 NHL games? Because those can be considered as "free picks" and I would think their odds are probably not far off from drafting later in the draft also.

 

So a team being able to attract these players may also have a leg up on moving some picks to try and gain tangible assets now.

[MaxVerstappen33]

IMO RJ Umberger, Grabner, Forsling and Mccan are unacceptable gaffs. Your draft picks should live or die on your team in principle. Grabner and Mccan were both lost because of a boomer reaction. Grabner allegedly didn't come to camp in good enough shape. So they fired him out the door. Mccan had some personality traits that weren't ideal. So they fired him out the door too.  Then ppl use the excuse that their next teams waived them too. But they were just the next in line to make the same mistake. Talent is the priceless element with players. Grabner and Mccan had it.

 

The only reason you trade a prospect is because you don't think they have the talent to have an NHL career. You don't trade prospects because they have some personal deficiencies. Ah. But if you let one guy show up a bit out of shape, the whole team is gonna show up out of shape! Nope. More boomer logic. These aren't kids 

[Ray_Cathode]

On 11/16/2022 at 11:14 AM, theo5789 said:

Any stats on signings of undrafted players to play 200 NHL games? Because those can be considered as "free picks" and I would think their odds are probably not far off from drafting later in the draft also.

 

So a team being able to attract these players may also have a leg up on moving some picks to try and gain tangible assets now.

Got a feeling that would be a harder to find someone tha has compiled it. With the drafted players you have a first column reference - the actual draft to act as a denominator. Not intending to be glib, but what would be the denominator for players not drafted - everyone who plays hockey?

[theo5789]

15 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

Got a feeling that would be a harder to find someone tha has compiled it. With the drafted players you have a first column reference - the actual draft to act as a denominator. Not intending to be glib, but what would be the denominator for players not drafted - everyone who plays hockey?

I understand the challenge of getting the data. But I just think it's another factor to think about. A lot of draft picks are wasted on nobodies, but say those guys rights are done as a draft pick and you find some player to "replace" that pick lost (and especially if they become someone of significance), then it's not as concerning as say simply trading the pick and still finding that youthful depth for whatever role.

 

For example, we find some young guy like Aman who's now playing a decent role for the team. Then who cares if we traded a 4th round pick that may never pan out like 4 years ago.

 

I mean if we want to have denominators, it could be free agents signed under 21 years old, then between 22-23, etc. However you want to break it down.

[IBatch]

On 11/10/2022 at 11:50 PM, Ray_Cathode said:

There has been much discussion about the value of picks beyond the first round and what value, if any, that they have. Conveniently, some has done an empirical study, and I have attached the link below. But, I will summarize: for forwards, the odds of a first rounder playing 200 games are about 35%, the odds for either a second or third rounder are about half that - but combined they equal that of a first rounder. Fourth and fifth rounders are about half of second or third rounders - but combined they equal the odds of a second. Odds after the fifth do drop off, but they still yield players. Odds for defencemen and goalies differ, with almost as many second round goalies as firsts making their 200 games.

 

in summary, draft picks of the lower rounds are essential to filling out a roster, and teams that throw away those opportunities tend, in the long run, not to do well.

 

Source: https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~msch/sports/Schuckers_NHL_Draft.pdf

Man does that make JV a bust or what?

 

Edit: It's not hard or tell.   I've been beating this drum for years.   Brock and McAan what a pair of bums! 

Edited November 21, 2022 by IBatch